Sri.K.Ajesh Kumar

1 Of 9 CC No.14858 of 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, HYDERABAD.

PRESENT: K.AJESH KUMAR,

CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

Dated on this the 4th day of November,2025

C.C.No. 14858 of 2019

BETWEEN:

The State of Telangana through The Sub-Inspector of police, Chandrayangutta PS, Hyderabad. ….Complainant.

A N D

A1) Shaik Hussain, S/o. Shaik Ahmed, Aged 27 years, Occ: Driver, R/o. H.No.18-8-450/15, Akbar Nagar, Edi Bvazar, Bhavani Nagar, Hyderabad.

A2) Shaik Khaleel @ Bablu, S/o. Shaik Ahmed, Aged 25 years, Occ:Driver, R/o. H.No.18-8-450/15, Akbar Nagar, Edi Bazar, Bhavani Nagar, Hyderabad. … Accused Nos.1 & 2.

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 28-10-2025 in the presence of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor on behalf of Prosecution and of Sri.Shankar Srinivas Rao, Counsel for Accused Nos.1 & 2 and upon hearing both sides and after having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station Chandrayangutta has filed charge sheet against the Accused Nos.1 & 2 for the offences punishable under Section 420 of IPC and Sec.7 of Essential Commodities

Act, 1955.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 09-07-2019, at 1300 hours, a complaint was received from PW-1 stating that on 09.07.2019, at about 10.30 AM after receiving telephonic call from officials of Vigilance team, PW-2, Inspector of Police/ C. Mallikarjun Chowdary,

PW-1 along with Smt B. Balamani, Dy. Tahsildar. (FS), C.R.O.., Hyderabad 2 Of 9 CC No.14858 of 2019 with the assistance of Vigilance team, rushed to the spot on 09.07.2019 at 11.30 AM and inspected Chandrayangutta main road and found suspected

PDS wheat Ashok Leyland Auto trolley bearing No. TS 13 UB 9793 and A2.

On questioning, A-2 revealed about the illegally transportation of PDS wheat. The driver/A-2 stated that A-1 has purchased PDS wheat from local area public at the rate of Rs.10/- per kg and sell it in the black marketing at the rate of Rs.12/- per kg and also repacking into the plastic bags and transporting for other places as directed by him for easy money and conducted panchanama with the help of mediators and seized (60) bags containing (30) Quintals of PDS Wheat and handed over the seized stock to MLS point, Yakuthpura Circle, Hyderabad and Auto trolley to

Police Station Chandrayangutta.

ii)Basing on the contents of the compliant, Sri.SK.Jakeer Hussain,

Sub-Inspector of police has registered a case in Cr.No.242/2019,

U/sec.420 of IPC and Sec.7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955. and took up the investigation. During the course of the investigation, he examined PW-1 and recorded her detailed statement in part II case dairy.

He also examined Sri.C.Mallikarjuna Chowdhary, Inspector of police &

PW-2 and recorded their detailed statement in Part-II Case Diary. Later,

Sri.C.Mallikarjuna Chowdhary, Inspector of police handed over the seizure panchanama and Sworn statement which was conducted by him in the presence of mediators, ie, Mohd.Moizuddin and PW-4 and seized PDS wheat kept for safe custody till further orders. Later, he visited scene of the offence and drafted rough sketch of the scene and conducted observation panchanama in the presence of mediators, ie, Shekar & PW-3 and he examined Saleh Saad Saleh/ eye witness at the scene of offence.

Later, he enquired with the A-2 who confessed his guilt of commission of offence. On his confession , he alongwith staff proceeded to the Hussain 3 Of 9 CC No.14858 of 2019 house and apprehended him at his house and brought him to Police

Station. As such, he served notices U/sec.41(A) Cr.P.C., to A1 and A2 and released them on bail. While the investigation was under progress, crime vehicle owner/Shaik Lateef approached the court and received vehicle as per the order of the court vide Crl.MP No.2106/2019, dt.31-7- 2019. On completion of entire investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused.

3.On filing and verification of the Charge Sheet, this court has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC and Sec.7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 against the Accused Nos.1 & 2.

4. On appearance of Accused Nos.1 & 2, copies of case documents were furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. The accused Nos.1 & 2 were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C.,and charge for the offence under Section 420 of IPC and Sec.7 of Essential

Commodities Act, 1955 were framed, read over and explained to the accused persons in vernacular language, for which, they denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During the course of trial, the Prosecution has examined PW.1 to

PW.5 and got marked Ex.P1 to P16.

7.After closure of Prosecution evidence, the accused Nos.1 & 2 were examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating evidence found against them, for which they denied and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

4 Of 9 CC No.14858 of 2019

8. Heard arguments on both sides. The learned Counsel for A1 and A2 relied upon the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Judicature, Telangana and

Andhra Pradhesh at Hyderabad,

1) In between Maimuna Begum Vs. State of Telangana and others reported in 2016(2) ALD (Crl.) 684, wherein it was observed in

Para No.11:- A careful reading of the above reproduced Clause shows that the same is attracted if a fair price shop dealer or interferes with the smooth distribution of scheduled commodities under the public distribution system or other Government schemes at any level right from the Food Corporation of

India godown to the fair price shop point, till the scheduled commodity reaches the intended beneficiary. From the unequivocal plain language of this provision, it is clear that it gets attracted when there is interruption of food grains from the stage of FCI godown till it reaches the end beneficiary i.e., cardholders. The provision does not comprehend any activity relating to any commodity falling under the Control Order, 2008 once it reaches the cardholder. There is no whisper either in the detention order or in the grounds of detention that any of the detenus is interrupting the smooth functioning of the scheduled commodities from the FCI godown point till it reaches intended beneficiary. On the contrary, the whole allegation against the detenus is that they have been purchasing the PDS rice from the cardholders. Therefore, this activity of the detenus completely falls outside

Clause 17(A) of the Control Order, 2008. Once there is no prohibition on such activity either under the 1955 Act or under the Control Order, 2008 which undisputedly is the only Order that governs distribution and control of rice meant for public distribution system, the detenus cannot be accused of committing any offence. As the respondents failed to show that the detenus have contravened the provisions of any other Control Order framed under

Section 3 of the 1995 Act, the alleged activities of the detenus are not liable for any penal action. Once their activities do not constitute an offence under law, then preventive detention under the provisions o the 1980 Act cannot be sustained.

2) In another decision of Hon’ble High Court of Judicature, Andhra

Pradhesh at Hyderabad in between Paidimukkala Venkat Krishna Rao

Vs. State reported in 2006 (1) ALD (Crl.) 157 (AP).

5 Of 9 CC No.14858 of 2019

9.Now the point for determination is:

“ Whether the prosecution able to bring home the guilt

of the Accused Nos.1 & 2 for the offence punishable under

Section 420 of IPC and Sec.7 of Essential Commodities Act,

1955 beyond all reasonable doubt” ?

POINT:

10. PW-1 is none other than the complainant who is the Asst. Civil

Supply Officer who has deposed that the Vigilance police has caught hold the PDS wheat in a lorry and informed to them. They went on joint inspection, she alongwith Mallikarjun Chowdary and Task Force Inspector at Chandrayangutta. They have found the PDS wheat bags containing 60 bags about 30 quintals. The Accused No.2 has purchased the wheat from

A1 and on enquiry they purchased the wheat from the local public at rate of Rs.10/- per kg and sold in the black market at the rate of Rs.12/- per kg. Thereafter, they have given the complaint in Police Station

Chandrayangutta.

11.PW-2 is the Dy.Tahsildar has deposed that on 9-7-2019, their ACSO have informed that PDS wheat was being transported. On the introductions of their ACSO, he visited Chandrayangutta at 10.30 am and found that the PDS wheat was transported in the auto. PW-2 found the auto driver and on enquiry he disclosed that the PDS wheat was purchased at Edi bazar in his locality and was transported to the

Chandrayangutta area to store the PDS wheat. The said auto driver also informed that his relative has informed him to transport the PDS wheat.

The A2 is the owner of the auto. Thereafter, they have secured the presence of panchas Mohd.Moiyessuddin and Shaik Sayed and conducted the panchanama in their presence. Later, he shifted the PDS wheat at

MLS point godown and went to Chandrayangutta Police Station and gave the complaint.

6 Of 9 CC No.14858 of 2019

12. PW-3 is also panch witness for Crime Detail Form who has deposed that on 9-7-2019, while he was going to the SBI proceeding towards

Barkas Chandrayangutta to deposit money in the bank then the police stopped him and conducted scene of offence panchanama. The panchanama was made with regard to the illegal transportation of wheat in an auto,

13. PW-4 is the panch witness for seizure panchanama who has deposed that he cannot identified the A1 and A2. He do not know the facts of the case. While he was going towards Chandrayangutta on his vehicle, at that time the police were checking the vehicle and stopped him as he was not having the license, as such the police stopped him. The Police took him and obtained his signature. This was happened prior to lock-down period.

Nobody was shown to him and and nothing was seized in his presence and no panchanama was conducted.

14.In this case the PDS Wheat has been transporting in the auto when the Joint inspection was conducted by PW-1, C.Mallikarjuna Choudhary,

Inspector of police, Vigilance and Task Force Inspector have found PDS wheat of 30 quintals. Ex.P2 is the panchanama which was conducted on 9-7-2019, at 11.30 am. On perusal of Ex.P2 the transportation of PDS wheat was found at Chandrayangutta area main road. Upon the seizure of the PDS wheat the same was shifted to the MLS point godown for safe custody. Ex.P3 which is the custodian receipt shows about the PDS wheat bags which have been kept under the safe custody at MLS point godown.

15.In order to prove the panchanama conducted on that day, the prosecution examined PW-4 & PW-5 who are the mediators for the panchanama. But the PW-4 & PW-5 have turned hostile and did not 7 Of 9 CC No.14858 of 2019 supported the prosecution case. As per their evidence nothing was seized in their presence by the police and no panchanama was conducted. Hence the testimony of PW-2 with regard to the conducting of panchanama is not supported with the independent panch witnesses. As per the prosecution case, A-2 is the auto driver, who was transporting the PDS wheat and A-1 has purchased PDS wheat from the locality area @ Rs.10/- per kg and selling in the black market @ Rs.12/- per kg and also repacking the same into the plastic bags and transporting to other places.

16.The Investigating Officer who investigated the case is not examined by the prosecution which is fatal to the prosecution case.

17. More over the customer who have purchased the PDS wheat from A1 are not examined by the prosecution to show that they have purchased the

PDS wheat from A1 in the black market @ Rs.12/- per kg.

18.More over, the place of offence is not fully proved by the prosecution.

The PW-3 is the mediator for conducting the scene of offence has disclosed that when he was proceeding towards Barkas, Chandrayangutta at that time, the police stopped him and conducted the scene of offence panchanama.

19. The non examination of the Investigating Officer who has conducted the scene of offence panchanama is fatal to the prosecution case.

20.More over PW-3 appears to be the stock witness for the police .

During his cross-examination, he admitted that he often visit normally to the Police Station and having acquaintance with the police.

8 Of 9 CC No.14858 of 2019

21.Therefore, I find that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the A-1 & A-2 for the offence U/sec.420 of IPC and Sec.7 of Essential

Commodities Act, 1955 beyond all reasonable doubt.

22. In the result, Accused Nos.1 & 2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Section 420 of IPC and Sec.7 of Essential

Commodities Act, 1955 and accordingly they are acquitted under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The Bail bonds of the Accused Nos.1 & 2 shall remain in force for a period of six months from today, as prescribed

U/sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

23.The unmarked property, ie, auto trolley bearing No. TS 13 UB 9793 which was given for interim custody to the owner of the vehicle shall be made absolute after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr-II of this court, transcribed and typed by

her corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 4 th day of November,2025.

CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

1. PW.1 : Ms.G.Tanuja, District Civil Supply Officer/ complainant.Nil.

2. PW.2 : Ms.B.Balamani, Dy.Tahasildar

3. PW.3 : B.Shekar, panch witness.

4. PW.4 : Mohammed Moziuddin, panch witness.

5. PW.5 : Shaik Sayeed, panch witness.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

1. Ex.P1- Complaint lodged by PW-1. Nil

2. Ex.P2 - Panchanama.

3. Ex.P3- Custodian Receipt.

4. Ex.P4- Crime Detail Form.

9 Of 9 CC No.14858 of 2019

5. Ex.P5 to Ex.P10 - Signature of PW-4 on seizure panchanama.

6. Ex.P11 to Ex.P16 - Signature of PW-5 on seizure panchanama.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

NilNil

Sd/-

CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

1 Of 8 CC No.161 of 2021

IN THE COURT OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

PRESENT: K.AJESH KUMAR,

CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

Dated on this the 31stday of October,2025

C.C.No.161 of 2021

BETWEEN:

The State of Telangana through The Sub-Inspector of police, Hussainialam PS, Hyderabad. ….Complainant.

A N D

A1) Syed Amer, S/o. Syed Ahmed, Aged 24 years, Occ: Cloth Business, R/o. H.NO.19-3-294/34, Vattepally, Hyderabad.

A2) Gulam Parvez, S/o. Gulam Fazil Ahmed, Aged 35 years, Occ: Car Mechanic, R/o. H.No.20-4-1165, Mecca Masjid, Charminar, Hyderabad. .… Accused Nos.1 & 2.

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 27-10-2025 in the presence of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor on behalf of Prosecution and of Sri. Mohd.Ghouse Pasha,Counsel for Accused Nos.1 & 2 upon hearing both sides and after having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station Hussainialam has filed charge sheet against the Accused Nos.1 & 2 for the offences punishable under Section 341,323 of IPC.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 25-11-2020, at 2230 hours, a complaint was received from PW-1 stating that on 19-11- 2020, at about 10.45 pm, A-1 & A-2 alongwith others came to his house and asked his brother Amjad Hussain, then PW-1 replied to them that his brother was not at home, he will come later. In the mean time his younger 2 Of 8 CC No.161 of 2021 brother Arbaaz Hussain came there and said persons abused his brother with filthy language, wrongfully restrained and tried to beat him. The PW-1 tried to rescue his brother, then A1 and A2 have beat him with hands due to which, he received injury on his right side eye and neck. Due to his personal work he did not came Police Station on the same day to lodge the complaint.

ii)Basing on the contents of above complaint, Sri.N.Narasing

Rao, Sub-Inspector of police has registered a case in Cr.No.321/2020, for the offences U/Sec.341,323 r/w 34 issued First Information Report and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, he examined the PW-1 and recorded his detailed statement in Part-II Case diary. Later

PW-6 visited the scene of offence at H.No.20-7-399/A/A, Inside

Fathedarwaza, Hussainialam, and secured two panchas and drafted observation panchanama and crime detail form in their presence. Later, he examined the eye witnesses, ie, PW-2 , Abdul Ghouse, Mohd.Noor Ali and Abdul Nadeem and recorded their detailed statements in Part-II Case

Diary. While the investigation under progress, on 15-12-2020, A1 came to

Police Station and voluntarily admitted his guilt as such, notice

U/sec.41-A Cr.P.C., was issued to A1. On 16-12-2020, A2 came to Police

Station and admitted his guilt of offence and the Sub-Inspector of police has issued a notice U/sec.41-A Cr.P.C to A-2. Subsequently, he collected medical certificate from PW-3 who treated PW-1 and opined that the injuries are simple in nature. On completion of the entire investigation, he filed charge sheet against A1 and A2 for the offences punishable

U/sec.341,323 r/w 34 of IPC.

3 Of 8 CC No.161 of 2021

3.On filing and verification of the Charge Sheet, this court has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 341,323 r/w 34 of

IPC against the Accused Nos.1 & 2.

4. On appearance of the accused Nos.1 & 2 copies of case documents were furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. The accused Nos.1 & 2 were examined under Section 251 of

Cr.P.C., explaining the accusation for the offences under Section 341,323 r/w 34 IPC read over and explained to them in their vernacular language, for which they denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, the Prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 & P2.

7.After closure of Prosecution evidence, the accused Nos.1 & 2 were examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating evidence found against them, for which they denied and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

8. Heard arguments from both sides.

9.Now the point for determination is:

“ Whether the prosecution able to bring home the guilt of the

Accused Nos.1 & 2 for the offences punishable under Section

341,323 r/w 34 IPC against Accused beyond all reasonable doubt” ?

4 Of 8 CC No.161 of 2021

POINT:

10.PW-1 is the complainant and injured who has testified that on 19- 11-2020, at 10.45 pm, both the accused alongwith others came and called his brother Amjad Hussain, then he informed that he is not there and he will come after sometime. Later, his brother came and both the accused abused him in filthy language and tried to beat him and on his intervention, A1 and A2 beat him on his left side face and neck, as such he went to Police Station and lodged the report under Ex.P1. The Sub-

Inspector of police did not register the case immediately, due to election time.

11. PW-2 is eye witness to the incident who has testified that he know both the accused. On 19-11-2020, at 10.45 pm, while he was in the house, both the accused came alongwith others and called his brother Amjad

Hussain, then PW-1 informed that he is not there and he will come after some time. Later, he came out and both the accused abused him in filthy language and tried to beat him and PW-1 when intervened was beaten with hands on his left side of the face and neck.

12. PW-3 is the Doctor at Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad who treated the injured has deposed that on 20-11-2020, at 1.30 am, the patient Owaisi Hussain came to the Casualty alleged to have been beaten by 30 known persons at Khilwath at 12.30 am, on 20-11-2020. She examined the patient and found the injuries,ie, 1) patient sustained minor laceration on the right side of the eye, 2) abrasion of 2 x 2 cms on both knees, 3) pain in the ribs and 4) right hand thumb pain. As per her 5 Of 8 CC No.161 of 2021 opinion, the injuries are simple in nature and issued medical certificate under Ex.P2.

16. This incident was occurred on 19-11-2020, at 10.45 pm. The

Accused Nos.1 & 2 alongwith others came and calling brother of PW-1

Amjad Hussain, then PW-1 has informed that he was not there and he will come after some time. When PW-1’s brother Arbaz Hussain came both the A1 and A2 abused him in filthy language and tried to beat him. On the intervention of PW-1, the accused have also beat him with hands on his left side of face and neck. The evidence of PW-1 is also corroborated with the eye witness, ie, PW-2. He also stated with regarding to the occurrence of the incident on that day asking about the brother of PW-1 and both the accused have abused him filthy language and beat PW-1 with hands on left side of his face and neck.

17. On carefully perusal of report under Ex.P1, which is in Telugu language. The PW-1 admitted during cross-examination that he do not know the reading and writing of Telugu language. More over PW-1 does not know contents of Ex.P1. The Sec.161 Cr.P.C., statements of PW1 and PW- 2 are in Telugu language. The PW-1 does not know the Telugu language containing Sec.161 Cr.P.C., statement. Further PW-2 has stated during the cross-examination that the statement was read over to him in Hindi language.

18. When the incident was occurred on 19-11-2020, at 10.45 PM the PW1 has lodged the report on 25-11-2020, at 22.30 hours. There is a delay in lodging the First Information Report. The reason as stated by the PW-1 in 6 Of 8 CC No.161 of 2021 the Ex.P1 that due to personal work, he did not come to the Police Station to lodged the report on the same day.

19.As per the Medical evidence the injured/ PW1 came to the Osmania

General Hospital, Hyderabad on 20-11-2020 at 1.30 am alleging to have beaten with 30 known persons Ex.P2 medical certificate shows that the patient sustained minor laceration on the right side of the eye, abrasion on both the knees, pain in the ribs and right hand thumb pain. As per the evidence of PW3, who is the Causality Medical Officer no police has accompanied with the victim to the hospital and there is no requisition issued by the police to examine the patient. It shows that the accused alone came to the hospital for treatment. It shows that PW-1 self came to hospital for treatment. Even though the injuries sustained to PW-1 shows in the medical certificate under Ex.P2, but there is delay in lodging the

First Information Report by the PW1.

20. More over in the present prosecution case brother of PW-1, ie, Amjad

Hussain has not examined by the prosecution to show that he was present at the time of incident.

21.The place of occurrence is also not proved by the prosecution. The mediators for the scene observation panchanama are not examined by the prosecution to show the place of occurrence. The none examination of the

Investigating Officer is also fatal to the prosecution case.

22.The PW-1 & PW-2 have stated that A1 and A2 alongwith others came to their house but the number of the accused has not whispered by PW-1 and PW-2 in their evidence. Whereas, the PW-1 has stated before the 7 Of 8 CC No.161 of 2021

Medical Officer that he was alleged to have been beaten with known 30 persons. Thus, there creates a doubt about the A1 and A2 have beaten the PW-1 or 30 known persons have beaten him.

23.Hence considering the facts and circumstance of the case and evidence brought on record, the prosecution has filed to prove the guilt of

A1 and A2 for the offences punishable U/sec.341, 323 r/w 34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.

24. In the result, Accused Nos.1 & 2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Section 341,323 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted under section 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused Nos.1 & 2 shall remain in force for a period of six months from today, as prescribed U/sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr-II of this court, transcribed and typed by

her corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 31st day of October,2025.

CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

1. PW.1 : Awaisi Hussain, complainant/injured.Nil.

2. PW.2 : Arbaz Hussain, eye witness.

3. PW.3 : Dr.A.Supraja, who treated PW1.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

1. Ex.P1 : Report lodged by PW-1.Nil.

2. Ex.P2 : Medical certificate of PW-1.

8 Of 8 CC No.161 of 2021

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

Nil.-Nil-

Sd/-

CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

1Crl.A.P.No.1283 of 2024

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE :

HYDERABAD.

Present : Sri. K.Ajesh Kumar,

V Addl Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

Dated this the 27 th day of February,2026

Crl.Appeal No.1283/2024

From which Court this Appeal is: XII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate preferredHyderabad. Number of the case in that Court: CC.No.41/2018 Number of the Appeal:Criminal Appeal No.1283 of 2024 Name and description of the: V.Janardhan Reddy, S/o.Late Ratta Appellant/Victim/PW-2 Reddy, Aged about 60 years, Occ:business, R/o. H.No.657, MIGH, KPHB Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. .

Name and description of the: Arimanda Siva Rama Krishna Reddy, Respondent/Accused S/o. Late Subba Reddy, Aged 56 years, Occ:Business, R/o. H.No.12- 49/A, Kollipara Village & Mandal, Guntur District, A.P.

The Lower Court Order: In the result, the court found that the accused is guilty for the offence U/sec.420 of IPC and he is convicted U/sec.248(2) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled subject to section 437-A Cr.P.C., for a period of six months. The accused is sentenced to suffer Rigirous imprisonment for 5 years and also to pay the fine amount of Rs.5,000/- for the offence U/sec.420 of IPC. In default of the payment of fine amount of Rs.5,000/-, he shall suffer 3 months simple imprisonment. As such the accused is also sentenced to pay compensation of proportionate amounts basing on the Ex.P2 to P36 U/s 357(3) of CrPC. Accordingly, (i) as per Ex.P2 to P23 the accused is sentenced to pay compensationamountof Rs.32,00,000/- (Thirty two lakhs only) to PW1. (ii) Further as per Ex.P24 to P31, the accused is sentenced to pay compensationamountofRs. 25,00,000/- (Twenty five lakhs only) to PW2. (iii) Further, as per Ex.P32 to 2Crl.A.P.No.1283 of 2024

P36, the accused is sentenced to pay compensationamountofRs. 22,50,000/- (Twenty two lakhs and fifty thousand only) to PW3, in default of the payment of said compensation amounts to the PW1 to PW3, he shall suffer six months simple imprisonment for each default compensation amount.

Whether confirmed, modified or:In the result, this appeal is dismissed. reversed, if modified the Modification.

DATE OF OR ON WHICH

Presentation: 12-09-2023 Filing: 21-8-2024 Notice issued by the Court: 27-8-2024 Appellant is ordered to be: 10-10-2024 appear Hearing:25-4-2025 Order:27-02-2026

This petition is coming for hearing before me in the presence of Sri.MSSKD. Prasad, Counsel for the Appellant/Victim/PW-2 and Sri.Janardhan Reddy Ponaka for the Respondent/Accused and having heard the matter and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court has made the following:

JUDGMENT

1)This is an appeal preferred U/sec.372 Cr.P.C., aggrieved by the judgment passed by the XII Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in CC

No.41/2018, dt.18-4-2023, for the offence U/sec.420 IPC.

2) a) The Appellant who is the Victim/PW-2 in the above CC showing the grounds of appeal that the Court below ought to have seen the case against the respondent/accused was proved beyond all reasonable doubt and the respondent/accused admitted the amounts being given to him by the

Appellant/PW-2 and several others, including other witnesses, in the insolvency petition bearing IP No. 13 of 2016 in the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge,

Tenali, which was eventually dismissed.

3Crl.A.P.No.1283 of 2024

b) The learned Magistrate failed to appreciate the factual matrix and consequently sentenced the respondent/accused only for a period of 5 years, contrary to 7 years of imprisonment as contemplated by the Section 420 of IPC.

c) The Magistrate has imposed penalty merely to the extent of less than half of the amount paid by the victims to the accused without any logic or rhyme. The compensation awarded by the lower court was without any logic or rhyme.

d) That the trial court has failed to provide any cogent reasons for not awarding compensation to the extent of the amounts paid by the victims, including the appellant/victim.

e) The Magistrate failed to appreciate that the offence under Section 420

IPC is an offence against the society/state and consequently did not award maximum possible sentence together with compensation, at least to the extent of the amounts paid by the victims.

f) The court below has shown undue mercy towards the respondent/accused, who has intentionally cheated several people, including the appellant/Victim/PW-2, to the extent of Rs.13,00,00,000/-, which is improper, resulting in not rendering full justice to the appellant and other victims.

g) The respondent/accused has filed an appeal which is pending on the file of this Court by Criminal Appeal No. 175 of 2023.

Hence, prayed to enhance the sentence and compensation awarded through the judgment dated 18-4-2023, by awarding compensation to the extent of Rs.91,00,000/-, which is equivalent to the principal amount paid to the accused and imprisonment of 7 years, as contemplated by law against the respondent/accused in the interest of justice.

3)Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/victim, who has submitted 4Crl.A.P.No.1283 of 2024 the written arguments and relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in Rajendra Bhagwanji Umraniya versus State of Gujarat.

4) On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/accused has also submitted his written arguments stating that the trial court has not considered the investment by respondents with appellant is a risk to invest in stock markets as he worked as a stock broker. The respondent accused has taken the defense of mere collection of blank promissory notes and cheques against to his will by force and pressure which cannot constitute the criminal liability under Section 420 of IPC.

i) The PW -1 to PW-3 failed to give the proper documentary or any piece of evidence to the court as source of income to lend such huge amounts to accused or even mode of transaction/payment as per law.

ii) The purpose of holding a person guilty under Section 420 IPC and the evidence adduced must establish the case beyond all reasonable doubt unless the complaint shows that the accused has dishonest or fraudulent intention at the time the complainant parted with the money it would not amount to an offence under Section 420 of IPC.

iii) The counsel for the respondent/accused has relied upon the decisions:-

a) N. Raghavendra Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh represented by CBI on 13-12- 2021,

(b) Professor R.K. Vijayasarathi Vs. Sudha Sitaram, dt.15/02/2019 and (c)

Archana Rana Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1-3-2021.

Hence, prayed to dismiss the appeal and set aside the judgment passed in CC. No.41 of 2018 by the XII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

5) Now the point for consideration is

“Whether the Judgment passed by the trial court in CC No.41 of

2018 awarding the sentence and compensation is inadequate as

preferred in the appeal”.

5Crl.A.P.No.1283 of 2024

6) The main grievance of the Appellant/PW-2 in preferring this appeal is that the Magistrate while awarding the sentence and compensation has not provided any cogent reason and also the inadequate compensation has been awarded, which resulted injustice to the appellant/PW-2. As seen the lower court has passed the judgment in CC No.41 of 2018 dated 18/4/2023, after full-fledged trial has been conducted before the lower court. While appreciating the documents which have been produced by the prosecution, the learned

Magistrate has assigned the reasons at para No.21 of the judgment which is as

follows: - “On perusal of the case on hand, the accused made a false representation to the PW-1 to PW-3 under the guise of providing interest at the rate of 20% per annum on their investments and collected the lakhs of amount from them and executed Ex.P2 to Ex.P36 to that effect and subsequently not responding to them and absconded and it shows that the conduct of accused has induced the PW1 to

PW3 from the inspection of the transaction, as such there is clear mens-rea on the part of the accused from the beginning of the transaction. At this stage, the learned counsel for the accused contended that the execution of Ex.P2 to P36 are seriously denied by the manner in which they are prepared. On the other hand, those Ex.P2 to Ex.P36 were collected by the investigation officer during the course of investigation. Though the learned counsel for the accused seriously tried to impeach the oral evidence of the witnesses, but this court unable to agree with any suspicions or doubt in oral testimonies of PW1 to PW8 in respect of the transaction between the accused and victims. The defence of the accused appears to be neither destruction of the prosecution case, nor construction of his defense by proper suggestions. The prosecution witnesses stood unshaken to the line of cross- examination and their evidence is consistent, cogent and trustworthy. In criminal cases, oral and direct evidence is very much relevant and considered, subject to 6Crl.A.P.No.1283 of 2024 cross-examination by the defense counsel in the case on hand”.

7) The evidence of PW1 to PW3 has been appreciated in the judgment and after considering the oral evidence of the witnesses and the documents which have been submitted by the prosecutions under Ex.P2 to Ex.P36, the trial court has awarded the sentence of imprisonment and awarded the compensation amount. While awarding the sentence of imprisonment, the trial court has observed from the record that part of the amounts paid to the PW1 to PW3, except the admission of PW1 with regard to the amount of Rs.2.50 lakhs towards interest partly. Further, there is no evidence brought on record to show that the

PW1 to PW3 got filed either Section 138 of NI Act cases or suits for recovery of their money before the concerned Civil Courts against the accused. As seen, the compensation has been awarded proportionately.

8) Basing on the documents Exs.P2 to P36 and the trial court has awarded the sentence and compensation rightly after appreciating the evidence on record.

Hence, I do not find any interference in the judgment of the trial court to enhance the conviction and the compensation awarded to the accused and the appeal preferred by the appellant/PW-2 is liable to be dismissed.

9) In the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.II, transcribed and typed by her corrected

and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 27th day of February,2026.

Sd/-

V ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,

HYDERABAD.

1Crl.A.P.No.1283 of 2024

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE :

HYDERABAD.

Present : Sri. K.Ajesh Kumar,

V Addl Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

Dated this the 27 th day of February,2026

Crl.Appeal No.1283/2024

From which Court this Appeal is: XII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate preferredHyderabad. Number of the case in that Court: CC.No.41/2018 Number of the Appeal:Criminal Appeal No.1283 of 2024 Name and description of the: V.Janardhan Reddy, S/o.Late Ratta Appellant/Victim/PW-2 Reddy, Aged about 60 years, Occ:business, R/o. H.No.657, MIGH, KPHB Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. .

Name and description of the: Arimanda Siva Rama Krishna Reddy, Respondent/Accused S/o. Late Subba Reddy, Aged 56 years, Occ:Business, R/o. H.No.12- 49/A, Kollipara Village & Mandal, Guntur District, A.P.

The Lower Court Order: In the result, the court found that the accused is guilty for the offence U/sec.420 of IPC and he is convicted U/sec.248(2) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled subject to section 437-A Cr.P.C., for a period of six months. The accused is sentenced to suffer Rigirous imprisonment for 5 years and also to pay the fine amount of Rs.5,000/- for the offence U/sec.420 of IPC. In default of the payment of fine amount of Rs.5,000/-, he shall suffer 3 months simple imprisonment. As such the accused is also sentenced to pay compensation of proportionate amounts basing on the Ex.P2 to P36 U/s 357(3) of CrPC. Accordingly, (i) as per Ex.P2 to P23 the accused is sentenced to pay compensationamountof Rs.32,00,000/- (Thirty two lakhs only) to PW1. (ii) Further as per Ex.P24 to P31, the accused is sentenced to pay compensationamountofRs. 25,00,000/- (Twenty five lakhs only) to PW2. (iii) Further, as per Ex.P32 to 2Crl.A.P.No.1283 of 2024

P36, the accused is sentenced to pay compensationamountofRs. 22,50,000/- (Twenty two lakhs and fifty thousand only) to PW3, in default of the payment of said compensation amounts to the PW1 to PW3, he shall suffer six months simple imprisonment for each default compensation amount.

Whether confirmed, modified or:In the result, this appeal is dismissed. reversed, if modified the Modification.

DATE OF OR ON WHICH

Presentation: 12-09-2023 Filing: 21-8-2024 Notice issued by the Court: 27-8-2024 Appellant is ordered to be: 10-10-2024 appear Hearing:25-4-2025 Order:27-02-2026

This petition is coming for hearing before me in the presence of Sri.MSSKD. Prasad, Counsel for the Appellant/Victim/PW-2 and Sri.Janardhan Reddy Ponaka for the Respondent/Accused and having heard the matter and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court has made the following:

JUDGMENT

1)This is an appeal preferred U/sec.372 Cr.P.C., aggrieved by the judgment passed by the XII Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in CC

No.41/2018, dt.18-4-2023, for the offence U/sec.420 IPC.

2) a) The Appellant who is the Victim/PW-2 in the above CC showing the grounds of appeal that the Court below ought to have seen the case against the respondent/accused was proved beyond all reasonable doubt and the respondent/accused admitted the amounts being given to him by the

Appellant/PW-2 and several others, including other witnesses, in the insolvency petition bearing IP No. 13 of 2016 in the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge,

Tenali, which was eventually dismissed.

3Crl.A.P.No.1283 of 2024

b) The learned Magistrate failed to appreciate the factual matrix and consequently sentenced the respondent/accused only for a period of 5 years, contrary to 7 years of imprisonment as contemplated by the Section 420 of IPC.

c) The Magistrate has imposed penalty merely to the extent of less than half of the amount paid by the victims to the accused without any logic or rhyme. The compensation awarded by the lower court was without any logic or rhyme.

d) That the trial court has failed to provide any cogent reasons for not awarding compensation to the extent of the amounts paid by the victims, including the appellant/victim.

e) The Magistrate failed to appreciate that the offence under Section 420

IPC is an offence against the society/state and consequently did not award maximum possible sentence together with compensation, at least to the extent of the amounts paid by the victims.

f) The court below has shown undue mercy towards the respondent/accused, who has intentionally cheated several people, including the appellant/Victim/PW-2, to the extent of Rs.13,00,00,000/-, which is improper, resulting in not rendering full justice to the appellant and other victims.

g) The respondent/accused has filed an appeal which is pending on the file of this Court by Criminal Appeal No. 175 of 2023.

Hence, prayed to enhance the sentence and compensation awarded through the judgment dated 18-4-2023, by awarding compensation to the extent of Rs.91,00,000/-, which is equivalent to the principal amount paid to the accused and imprisonment of 7 years, as contemplated by law against the respondent/accused in the interest of justice.

3)Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/victim, who has submitted 4Crl.A.P.No.1283 of 2024 the written arguments and relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in Rajendra Bhagwanji Umraniya versus State of Gujarat.

4) On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/accused has also submitted his written arguments stating that the trial court has not considered the investment by respondents with appellant is a risk to invest in stock markets as he worked as a stock broker. The respondent accused has taken the defense of mere collection of blank promissory notes and cheques against to his will by force and pressure which cannot constitute the criminal liability under Section 420 of IPC.

i) The PW -1 to PW-3 failed to give the proper documentary or any piece of evidence to the court as source of income to lend such huge amounts to accused or even mode of transaction/payment as per law.

ii) The purpose of holding a person guilty under Section 420 IPC and the evidence adduced must establish the case beyond all reasonable doubt unless the complaint shows that the accused has dishonest or fraudulent intention at the time the complainant parted with the money it would not amount to an offence under Section 420 of IPC.

iii) The counsel for the respondent/accused has relied upon the decisions:-

a) N. Raghavendra Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh represented by CBI on 13-12- 2021,

(b) Professor R.K. Vijayasarathi Vs. Sudha Sitaram, dt.15/02/2019 and (c)

Archana Rana Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1-3-2021.

Hence, prayed to dismiss the appeal and set aside the judgment passed in CC. No.41 of 2018 by the XII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

5) Now the point for consideration is

“Whether the Judgment passed by the trial court in CC No.41 of

2018 awarding the sentence and compensation is inadequate as

preferred in the appeal”.

5Crl.A.P.No.1283 of 2024

6) The main grievance of the Appellant/PW-2 in preferring this appeal is that the Magistrate while awarding the sentence and compensation has not provided any cogent reason and also the inadequate compensation has been awarded, which resulted injustice to the appellant/PW-2. As seen the lower court has passed the judgment in CC No.41 of 2018 dated 18/4/2023, after full-fledged trial has been conducted before the lower court. While appreciating the documents which have been produced by the prosecution, the learned

Magistrate has assigned the reasons at para No.21 of the judgment which is as

follows: - “On perusal of the case on hand, the accused made a false representation to the PW-1 to PW-3 under the guise of providing interest at the rate of 20% per annum on their investments and collected the lakhs of amount from them and executed Ex.P2 to Ex.P36 to that effect and subsequently not responding to them and absconded and it shows that the conduct of accused has induced the PW1 to

PW3 from the inspection of the transaction, as such there is clear mens-rea on the part of the accused from the beginning of the transaction. At this stage, the learned counsel for the accused contended that the execution of Ex.P2 to P36 are seriously denied by the manner in which they are prepared. On the other hand, those Ex.P2 to Ex.P36 were collected by the investigation officer during the course of investigation. Though the learned counsel for the accused seriously tried to impeach the oral evidence of the witnesses, but this court unable to agree with any suspicions or doubt in oral testimonies of PW1 to PW8 in respect of the transaction between the accused and victims. The defence of the accused appears to be neither destruction of the prosecution case, nor construction of his defense by proper suggestions. The prosecution witnesses stood unshaken to the line of cross- examination and their evidence is consistent, cogent and trustworthy. In criminal cases, oral and direct evidence is very much relevant and considered, subject to 6Crl.A.P.No.1283 of 2024 cross-examination by the defense counsel in the case on hand”.

7) The evidence of PW1 to PW3 has been appreciated in the judgment and after considering the oral evidence of the witnesses and the documents which have been submitted by the prosecutions under Ex.P2 to Ex.P36, the trial court has awarded the sentence of imprisonment and awarded the compensation amount. While awarding the sentence of imprisonment, the trial court has observed from the record that part of the amounts paid to the PW1 to PW3, except the admission of PW1 with regard to the amount of Rs.2.50 lakhs towards interest partly. Further, there is no evidence brought on record to show that the

PW1 to PW3 got filed either Section 138 of NI Act cases or suits for recovery of their money before the concerned Civil Courts against the accused. As seen, the compensation has been awarded proportionately.

8) Basing on the documents Exs.P2 to P36 and the trial court has awarded the sentence and compensation rightly after appreciating the evidence on record.

Hence, I do not find any interference in the judgment of the trial court to enhance the conviction and the compensation awarded to the accused and the appeal preferred by the appellant/PW-2 is liable to be dismissed.

9) In the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.II, transcribed and typed by her corrected

and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 27th day of February,2026.

Sd/-

V ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,

HYDERABAD.

1Crl.A.P.No.1282 of 2024

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE :

HYDERABAD.

Present : Sri. K.Ajesh Kumar,

V Addl Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

Dated this the 27 th day of February,2026

Crl.Appeal No.1282/2024

Between :

Y.Sree Rama Chandra Rao, S/o.late Venkaiah, Aged about 85 years, Occ: Retired and Family Pensioner, R/o. Plot No.43, Venkateshwara Colony, Erragadda, Hyderabad. Presently R/o. At 49, Wareham Green Coventry, CV 22JL England,

United Kingdom.….. Appellant /Defacto-complainant.

AND

Arimanda Siva Rama Krishna Reddy, S/o. Late Subba Reddy, Aged 56 years, Occ:Business, R/o. H.No.12-49/A, Kollipara Village & Mandal,

Guntur District, A.P. …..Respondent/Accused.

This petition is coming for hearing before me in the presence of Sri.MSSKD.Prasad, Counsel for the Appellant/Defacto-complainant and Sri.Janardhan Reddy Ponaka for the Respondent/Accused and having heard the matter and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court has made the following:

O R D E R

1)This is an appeal preferred U/sec.372 Cr.P.C., aggrieved by the judgment passed by the XII Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in CC

No.41/2018, dt.18-4-2023, for the offence U/sec.420 IPC.

2) a) The Appellant who is the defacto-complainant in the above CC showing the grounds that the Court below ought to have seen the case against the respondent/accused was proved beyond all reasonable doubt and the respondent/accused admitted the amounts being given to him by the

Appellant/Defacto-complainant and several others, including other witnesses, in 2Crl.A.P.No.1282 of 2024 the insolvency petition bearing IP No. 13 of 2016 in the Court of Additional

Senior Civil Judge, Tenali, which was eventually dismissed.

b) The learned Magistrate failed to appreciate the factual matrix and consequently sentenced the respondent/accused only for period of five years, contrary to seven years of imprisonment as contemplated by the Section 420 of

IPC.

c) The Magistrate has imposed penalty merely to the extent of less than half of the amount paid by the victims to the accused, as only Rs.32 lakhs compensation was awarded, while the appellant/defacto-complainant has admittedly paid Rs.74 lakhs. Thus, the compensation awarded by the lower court was without any logic or rhyme.

d) That the trial court has failed to provide any cogent reasons for not awarding compensation to the extent of the amounts paid by the victims, including the appellant/defacto-complainant.

e) The Magistrate failed to appreciate that the offence under Section 420

IPC is an offence against the society/state and consequently did not award maximum possible sentence together with compensation, at least to the extent of the amounts paid by the victims.

f) The court below has shown undue mercy towards the respondent/accused, who has intentionally cheated several people, including the appellant/defacto-complainant, to the extent of Rs.3 Crores, which is improper, resulting in not rendering full justice to the appellant and other victims.

g) The respondent/accused has filed an appeal which is pending on the file of this Court by Criminal Appeal No. 175 of 2023, which is posted to 15-9-2023 for calling of records.

Hence, prayed to enhance the sentence and compensation awarded through the judgment dated 18-4-2023, by awarding compensation to the extent of Rs.74 lakhs, which is equal to the principal amount paid by the appellant to 3Crl.A.P.No.1282 of 2024 the accused and imprisonment of seven years, as contemplated by law against the respondent/accused in the interest of justice.

3)Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant, who has submitted the written arguments and relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in Rajendra Bhagwanji Umraniya versus State of Gujarat. Wherein the relevant para No.25 of the judgment is as follows.

“As such, when deciding the compensation which is to be paid to the victim, the only factor that the court may take into consideration is the convict's capacity to pay the compensation and not the sentence that has been imposed. In criminal proceedings, the courts should not conflate sentence with compensation to victims.

Sentences such as imprisonment and or fine imposed independently of any victim compensation, and thus the two stand on the completely different footing either of them cannot vary the other. When an accused is directed to pay compensation to victims, the same is not meant as punishment or atonement of the convict but rather as a step towards reparation of the victims who has suffered from the offence committed by the convict”.

4) On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/accused has also submitted his written arguments stating that the trial court has not considered the investment by respondents with appellant is a risk to invest in stock markets as he worked as a stock broker. The respondent accused has taken the defense of mere collection of blank promissory notes and cheques against to his will by force and pressure which cannot constitute the criminal liability under Section 420 of IPC.

i) The PW -1 to PW-3 failed to give the proper documentary or any piece of evidence to the court as source of income to lend such huge amounts to accused or even mode of transaction/payment as per law.

ii) The purpose of holding a person guilty under Section 420 IPC and the evidence adduced must establish the case beyond all reasonable doubt unless the complaint shows that the accused has dishonest or fraudulent intention at 4Crl.A.P.No.1282 of 2024 the time the complainant parted with the money it would not amount to an offence under Section 420 of IPC.

iii) The counsel for the respondent/accused has relied upon the decisions:

(a) N. Raghavendra versus State of Andhra Pradesh represented by CBI on 13-12- 2021,

(b) Professor R.K. Vijayasarathi versus Sudha Sitaram, dt.15/02/2019 and

(c) Archana Rana versus State of Uttar Pradesh, 1-3-2021.

Hence, prayed to dismiss the appeal and set aside the judgment passed in CC. No.41 of 2018 by the XII Addl.Chief Metroplitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

5) Now the point for consideration is

“Whether the Judgment passed by the trial court in CC No.41 of

2018 awarding the sentence and compensation is inadequate as

preferred in the appeal”.

6) The main grievance of the Appellant/Defecto-Complainant in preferring this appeal is that the Magistrate while awarding the sentence and compensation has not provided any cogent reason and also the inadequate compensation has been awarded, which resulted injustice to the appellant/defecto-complainant. As seen the lower court has passed the judgment in CC No.41 of 2018 dated 18/4/2000, after full-fledged trial has been conducted before the lower court.

While appreciating the documents which have been produced by the prosecution, the learned Magistrate has assigned the reasons at para No.21 of the judgment which is as follows: - “On perusal of the case on hand, the accused made a false representation to the PW-1 to PW-3 under the guise of providing interest at the rate of 20% per annum on their investments and collected the lakhs of amount from them and executed Ex.P2 to Ex.P36 to that effect and subsequently not responding to them and absconded and it shows that the conduct of accused has induced the PW1 to

PW3 from the inspection of the transaction, as such there is clear mens-rea on the part of the accused from the beginning of the transaction. At this stage, the learned 5Crl.A.P.No.1282 of 2024 counsel for the accused contended that the execution of Ex.P2 to P36 are seriously denied by the manner in which they are prepared. On the other hand, those Ex.P2 to Ex.P36 were collected by the investigation officer during the course of investigation. Though the learned counsel for the accused seriously tried to impeach the oral evidence of the witnesses, but this court unable to agree with any suspicions or doubt in oral testimonies of PW1 to PW8 in respect of the transaction between the accused and victims. The defence of the accused appears to be neither destruction of the prosecution case, nor construction of his defense by proper suggestions. The prosecution witnesses stood unshaken to the line of cross- examination and their evidence is consistent, cogent and trustworthy. In criminal cases, oral and direct evidence is very much relevant and considered, subject to cross-examination by the defense counsel in the case on hand”.

7) The evidence of PW1 to PW3 has been appreciated in the judgment and after considering the oral evidence of the witnesses and the documents which have been submitted by the prosecutions under Ex.P2 to Ex.P36, the trial court has awarded the sentence of imprisonment and awarded the compensation amount. While awarding the sentence of imprisonment, the trial court has observed from the record that part of the amounts paid to the PW1 to PW3, except the admission of PW1 with regard to the amount of Rs.2.50 lakhs towards interest partly. Further, there is no evidence brought on record to show that the

PW1 to PW3 got filed either Section 138 of NI Act cases or suits for recovery of their money before the concerned Civil Courts against the accused. As seen, the compensation has been awarded proportionately.

8) Basing on the documents Exs.P2 to P36 the trial court has awarded the sentence and compensation rightly after appreciating the evidence on record.

Hence, I do not find any interference in the judgment of the trial court to 6Crl.A.P.No.1282 of 2024 enhance the conviction and the compensation awarded to the accused and the appeal preferred by the appellant/defecto-complainant is liable to be dismissed.

9) In the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.II, transcribed and typed by her corrected

and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 27th day of February,2026.

Sd/-

V ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,

HYDERABAD.